Anna Popplewell: Susan’s Appearance Will Be Brief

Posted September 17, 2010 1:46 pm by Glumpuddle

Yesterday, we posted a link to a short video interview with Anna Popplewell (Susan) at the UK premiere of Charlie St. Cloud, where she said: “I’m only in a teenny tiny fraction of [The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]. I just went out basically to do this one scene, and to visit. But it looks like it’s going to be really good, and obviously I’m excited to see it.” (Thanks to ‘Daredevil’ for the find)

Hours later, another short interview popped up on YouTube:

Transcript:

Q: …Looking forward to the new film. What can you tell us?

Anna: I can’t tell you very much because I’m not really in it. My character is not in the book. But if you keep your eyes peeled very carefully, then you might catch a glimpse of me. But I think everyone who I know who is involved with it is really excited about it, and it’s going to be out towards the end of the year.

Q: In the trailer, it looks big.

Anna: Yeah, well they don’t like to muck about with them really, do they? Lots of it is set on a boat this time, so it’s got quite a different look, but it’s still more of the same epic scale.

Q: Were you a bit sad not to be as involved as you were with the other films?
Anna: Yeah, I mean of course, because I had such a good time doing them. But at the same time, it sort of meant that I was allowed to go to university, so it kind of worked out well.

NarniaWebbers have been speculating about Peter and Susan’s role in the film ever since they first appeared on a theater stand in May, and again in trailers. In the book, Peter is busy studying for exams and Susan is in America. Here an an excerpt from The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Chapter 1:

Edmund and Lucy did not at all want to come and stay with Uncle Harold and Aunt Alberta. But it really couldn’t be helped. Father had got a job lecturing in America for sixteen weeks that summer, and Mother was to go with him because she hadn’t had a real holiday for ten years. Peter was working very hard for an exam and he was to spend the holidays being coached by old Professor Kirke in whose house these four children had had wonderful adventures long ago in the war years. If he had still been in that house he would have had them all to stay. But he had somehow become poor since the old days and was living in a small cottage with only one bedroom to spare. It would have cost too much money to take the other three all to America, and Susan had gone.

Grown-ups thought her the pretty one of the family and she was no good at school work (though otherwise very old for her age) and Mother said she “would get far more out of a trip to America than the youngsters”. Edmund and Lucy tried not to grudge Susan her luck, but it was dreadful having to spend the summer holidays at their Aunt’s. “But it’s far worse for me,” said Edmund, “because you’ll at least have a room of your own and I shall have to share a bedroom with that record stinker, Eustace.”

So, why are Peter and Susan wearing their Narnian clothes in the trailer? Discuss!

92 Comments For This Story

Its the shots of Peter and Susan on the Theatre Standee which really confuse me the most at the moment. The trailer shot with them in the Narnian clothes seems reasonably explainable as being resultant from The Magician’s Book. The style of the pillars at the very least put the scene very firmly on Coriakin’s Island…

But those two photos of them in "real world" clothes? From everything we’ve seen of the opening scenes in the real world, there doesn’t seem to be any scope for including Peter and Susan. And to add them at the end would surely require the end to be far too long and drawn out. Unless of course that’s also from the Magician’s Book, but by then it seems you’re getting into Peter and Susan overkill.

Whatever they’ve done though, i just hope Michael Apted’s quotes about their inclusion being a "grace-note" are correct, and that their presence genuinely was part of his artistic vision for the story, and not something that was forced upon him by the Fox and Walden marketing executives.

I’m sure Michael Apted’s version will be great and that Susan and Peter will just have cameos. In the BBC version they all were at the train station before Lucy and Ed set off for Eustace’s and then Susan appeared in the Magician’s Book – I imagine a similar amount of on screen time as that. No version will be perfect for everyone so we must trust and be supportive. As a school teacher I’m thrilled because I’ve seen so many children discover the books and Narnia through these films.

You mean people like Anna Popplewell? “My character is not in the book.”

By your logic, we would also have to say that Reepicheep is in SC, because he is mentioned at the parliament of owls. We would also have to say that Shasta and Bree are in SC, because they are mentioned at Cair Paravel. I think you’re just playing word games. You know what I mean.

In any case: Susan never appears in her Narnian clothes carrying her bow and arrows walking…somewhere.

No, this is more than word games. I have heard people say things like this because they are uninformed about Peter and Susan being mentioned. By saying "not… at all" you give people the wrong impression.
And I see no problem showing the White Witch. She is a perfect example of dreams coming true. I don’t particularly like the temptation of Edmund, but the idea to include her is not at all bad in itself.
This is a film. In film you portray what is said by SHOWING it.

So, Mark, if I told someone "Reepicheep is not in SC at all," would that give them the wrong impression? Because he is mentioned in the book.

It would give people the wrong impression to say “Reep is in SC briefly.” Likewise, it would give people the wrong impression to say “Susan is in VDT briefly.” Anna seems to agree, because she says “My character is not in the book.”

It is true that in a film, it is usually better to show things rather than say them. If they showed Susan in America, or Peter taking exams, that would be fine.

Now who’s playing word games? I think you are confused, because Susan IS in the book. What you are saying about Reep does not apply. Susan is more than just mentioned as someone from the past. She is actually doing something at the time the action is taking place. And Reep does not make an appearance in a Magical book. 🙂

I agree with glumPuddle. Susan isn’t in the book, unless they’re talking about the scene with the Magician’s book where Lucy looks in and she’s back in England and no one cares about Susan any more because Lucy is more beautiful. This extra scene is obviously extra, not in the Canon, and therefore violating book-verse-ness.

Another example (besides Reepicheep) is Caspian mentioning that he left Trumpkin as regent in VDT. Is Trumpkin in the book? Well…no. But he’s alive and /doing something/ at the time that he’s mentioned.

I agree with glumPuddle, but I had forgotten about the scene that Caspian mentioned, in which Lucy sees herself being more beautiful than Susan. I suppose that when you’re making a book into a movie, showing that Susan and Peter are gone works so much better visually for audiences than just saying it.

I was playing your word game, and showing why the logic doesn’t hold up.

You said it would give people the wrong impression to say Susan is not in VDT at all. I think it gives people the correct impression. Keyword: Impression.

Lets suppose someone asked me if Susan was in VDT, and I said "No, she’s not." Lets say that person started reading the book. When they came to the Magician’s Book scene, I really don’t think that person would call me a liar and say "you said Susan wasn’t in the book! But she’s mentioned right here!"

Susan is not an active player in the story. She is merely mentioned a few times. I think Anna’s statement "my character is not in the book" gives the correct impression.

I think it depends on how you look at it. If there’s a scene in the movie about them deciding which of the Pevensies gets to go to America, and it shows them picking Susan, and it shows them saying goodbye to Susan, then Susan is in it, and its fairly accurate to the book. So in that way, she is kind of in it, at the beginning, because it documents her leaving England. So it would be true in that case. (kind of)
It is inaccurate to say that Susan actually went to Narnia though, because in the book she never went to Narnia. What Lucy saw of her was just a spell and probably not something Susan would even be aware of. Only Lucy would see it, because it didn’t really happen. It’s something she saw WOULD happen if she had said the spell.
I hope that made sense. 🙂

I’m not sure this is relevant, but Prunaprismia isn’t exactly in the book. She is certainly mentioned, but only in the sort of introduction to Caspian before it goes into his actual story. All it said was that she had a kid and didn’t like Caspian very much. There are no actual walking/talking/doing anything scenes with her. Yet, no one seemed to mind her being in the movie. I think it perfectly all right to have Peter and Susan in one teensy, weensy, itty, bitty, little scene to show that they didn’t just drop of the edge of the world, just like Prunaprismia was in a few tiny scenes just so you know who this Prunaprismia person they talk about is.

I agree with Glumpuddle. It’s just a word game. It’s kind of like if I said, "Abraham Lincoln is NOT on the 5 dollar bill; It’s just a picture of him. Lincoln is in a tomb in Springfield."

When we say that Abe Lincoln is on the 5 dollar bill, of course we don’t mean that his actually body is on the bill. Of course it’s just his picture.

So,in the same way, when we say that Susan is not in the third book, we’re not saying that she’s never mentioned or even referred to. Of course she’s mentioned at the beginning and during the scene of the magician’s book. The point is that she doesn’t play a role, neither a major role (like in LWW) nor a minor role (like in HBB).

But I would prefer for the filmmakers to give her a cameo and show her going to America. That would be great.

There is no reason for her to be wearing Narnian clothes. THAT is untrue to the book.

After giving it much thought, I’m going to have to side with gP on this one. Perhaps your definitions of "in the book" are different. My definition happens to match gP’s (the character plays at least some sort of active role in the book, besides being just mentioned). I think Sommer’s definition is a bit more broad (a character simply being mentioned in the book without doing anything and also a character that does have an active role). I’m not even going to enter the wordplay discussion.

And, believe it or not, the question of how much Susan and Peter should be in the book is actually quite important to many people- more than some would think. Isn’t this the whole point of Narniaweb: to discuss and debate about aspects of the books and movies with other Narnia fans? As well as informing people about the newest updates from the movies, of course.

Deep breaths people…deep breaths….its just a book. Yes, its a book we all love but its just a book. Books usually translate to movies with some differences. Susan may or my not have been mentioned in the book therefore meaning she may or may not have been in the book. Reepicheep may or may not have been mentioned in SC meaning he may or may not have been in the book….oh wow, my brain is starting to hurt and its making me glum. I think Ill go sit in a puddle.

Visually speaking, Susan is more present in Voyage of the Dawn Treader than Reepicheep is in Silver Chair.

But it is (obviously) debatable whether or not her character can rightly be called ‘in’ the book.

Her character has a mild impact on the story, but without being physically present. Stating that she is only ‘mentioned in the book’ is true, but it is also misleading because Lucy sees Susan visually in the book. At the same time, the actual-Susan is not really in the story at all, only potential-Susan.

HELLO?! Did any of you take any time to realize that both Peter and Susan are really in the beginning of the book. It talks about how Susan goes to America, and Peter goes off to study with the professor. Maybe he stumbles upon the wardrobe again? But that is why they might be seen in their London clothes.

Did you two (Sommer and Glumpuddle) even read the above question? We’re supposed to be discussing why we think they were wearing Narnian clothes in the trailer. NOT what our opinions are about whether Susan and Peter should be considered "in the book or not in the book", "in the movie or not in the movie." I am totally disinclined to talk anymore about it after this discussion has taken such a rediculous turn. I will say this, I am very excited about the movie and can’t wait to see it, regardless of how much screen time Peter and Susan may or may not have.

You’re right. I mean she’s like my favorite character. I know people who have read the book didn’t like the relationship between Caspian and Susan but I haven’t read the book and I loved the relationship.I really want it to continue in some way. Is there any Caspian and Susan fans on this web?

Seriously, I do not know what to believe in these words coming from Anna. I remember in the movie companion when she talks about her character Susan and Caspian’s relationship and how it wasn’t going to be this big romantic thing, luckly for her most of it was cut out the film and after it came out she spoke of how nervous she would have been if those scenes were still in the film. So don’t blame me for feeling bit suspicious of her interview here. It’s still good news but IDK what think at this moment.

I was wondering if Anna was referring to her little cameo-like appearance in the beauty spell, especially when she says, "if you keep your eyes peeled very carefully, then you might catch a glimpse of me."

I almost think that if Susan and Peter were going to be in real-world scenes, we would’ve seen them in the trailer…but since we only see them in the Narnian clothes, I’m leaning toward the Magician’s book theory.

I’m still really confident that the movie is going to be really close to the book!

I think the scene with Narnian clothes in the trailer is a flashback to when they were kings and queens in Narnia. This would fit well in many different places.
Anyway, it is good to hear from Anna. I wish her all the best in whatever she finds to do.

I don’t think the motivation matters IF it fits. I can understand, from the filmmakers viewpoint, the desire to use characters that the film audience with resonate with. That is not a bad thing. How well this will fit with the spirit of the book remains to be seen.
Remember, this is NOT Prince Caspian. We were told that the filmmakers have listened very intently this time to experts on the book. And my personal opinion is that with Disney out of the way they were able to create a story much truer to the book.
Again, we shall see…

Yes, all we can hope for now is that it fits… is it just me, glumPuddle,(yourself being one that seems to know alot about these things) the lighting,etc. and overall "feel" of the shot we’ve seen of Peter and Su different from the rest of the film(that we’ve seen so far, anyway)

Btw, i wish they had let more of her real accent come thru in the films… it’s alot more Susan-like

Just like Prince Caspian I think they add a big battle to save Narnia the end of VDT. So I don’t think it’s a flashback. The director said that he wanted them to age before they filmed stuff like that.

Susan and Peter are mentioned in the book in the beginning as well as what they are doing. Susan also appears in the Magician’s Book. So I always thought it appropriate to have them have a brief appearance in VDT! 🙂

Bree and Shasta were long gone by then. Peter and Susan are very much "living and contemporary characters" who are a part of the first chapter of VDT. Therefore, I think it OK for a brief appearance in the movie. 🙂

Oh my goodness! What I’ve read above sounds a bit confrontational! At the risk of bringing wrath upon my own head – relax – it’s just a film! There are more important things going on in the world – starvation, wars, political prisoners, abuse … should I go on!

The fact that things like this don’t matter in the grand scheme of things is exactly why they DO matter so much. It is one of the most important facets of human existence to be able to engage passionately in pursuits which ultimately are of no significant consequence, whether that be Sports, Books, Movies, or whatever. But anyway, thats getting off topic….

I think this is of significant consequence. It’s a reflection on a question humanity has been asking for thousands of years: "Where is my true home? Where do I belong?"

It’s hard to put into words why film (or any artform really) can be so powerful. But "Inception" does a wonderful job of exploring it. The fact that people are not fully aware of deeper meanings is what makes them so powerful. Seeds sneak into their subconscious.

Actually, I am relaxed. If it sounds like I’m angry, I’m not. I actually have a very high regard for glumPudlle. We just have very strong opinions on a very few things that we disagree on.
Yes, it is important they get the film right. But some specifics are more important than others. I happen to think this whole Peter/Susan/White Witch might not make much difference in conveying the ideas that were important to C S Lewis. But if including them helps bring fans to the movie who might not have come otherwise, and the spirit of the book is conveyed well at all, I will be very happy.

Cool off everyone. I have read all the Narnia books many, many times. It does not matter what we ultra purists think about books vs. movies.

1) Books and movies are very different mediums. The movie can never be just like the book, and the movie does not change the book. My Narnia books are word for word the same as when I bought them.

2) Movies must appeal to a mass market. If Fox does not sell tens or hundreds of million tickets to VDT there will not be any more movies. Most people who buy a ticket will have never read any of the Narnia books. To successfully adapt the book to a movie the production company has to use whatever tricks they can (and still be faithful to the book) to get people past the box office. Remember, no profits – no more Narnia movies. The people who visit this web site are not enough to carry the movie.

3) If you are an ultra purist about the book, read it again. It is a great read, and I am sure the movie will be great, but in a different way. We have their assurances that all the underlying truths from the book are in the movie. That is good enough for me. The best thing we can do is support Fox and Walden in this endeavor and get our friends to see the movie. I am sure that people where I work are getting tired of me singing about Narnia. Oh well. It is going to be a great show.

I didn’t say it doesn’t matter Obviously I think it does otherwise I wouldn’t be posting here What I said was there are more important things which there are! Didn’t mean to insult anyone and glad noone meant to be confrontational coz I find confrontation really uncomfortable (my issue) Sorry if I upset anyone!

Don’t feel too badly, Polly Plummer. It is just that glumPuddle and Mark S. are passionate (as are a good number of others 😀 ) about Narnia.
They are pretty nice guys and level-headed from what I can tell. 🙂

Thanks Glimglum I feel passionate about them too! I’m a 36 yr old who’s read these books about once a year since I was 11 I think the books are really important and have a huge message but am not as convinced about the film adaptations especially since PC Honestly I think a few years ago this would have been a bigger issue for me but have sort have given up on the films protrating Lewis’ real message although some hints from VDT especially about the final scene with Aslan have reignited a spark of hope Once that message comes across I don’t really mind Anna being in it as long as she’s not too much of a distraction from the real message of the film

I think the thems and messages from VDT are going to come through pretty well based on what Tony Nixon said in his recent interview and what others have said as well.
In an ideal world, there would be a Narnia movie that all fans would approve of. (But only God Himself could make it though.) 😀
But in this world, all we can do is pray and encourage the moviemakers to try to come as close as possible.

Well, at the end of VDT in the book Edmund and Lucy see their world growing closer and closer to them, don’t they? Aslan "opens a door for them in the sky." And since they won’t be returning to Narnia again, (at least until the Last Battle), this is significant. Maybe one of the last scenes in VDT will hearken back to the mood of LWW and shows the four kings and queens as they were (in casual outfits or whatever) in a sort of vision. Peter and Susan won’t necessarily BE there in Narnia, but Edmund and Lucy might join them in like I said a kind of vision and all leave Narnia together, and the audience will see the sad, but hopeful end of the Narnia adventures for the Pevensies. I think it would make sense and be really artisitc, and kind of bittersweet in a good way, if a brief glimpse of this finishes the Pevensies’ adventures in Narnia.

I agree,i bet this is the way it will end up, and i think it would be great! better closure for those of us who love the Pevensies the most of all the characters. i only wish cs lewis had kept them in all of the books. they are like old friends to me and the other books are less interesting to me as much with out them there and there’s just a new bunch of characters i have no feelings for.

I don’t really understand Anna’s statement of "But if you keep your eyes peeled very carefully, then you might catch a glimpse of me." The only way that would make sense is in reference to the beauty spell in the Book of Incantations. I don’t know how you could possibly *not* see her in the scene where the four Pevensies are marching towards who knows what. They’re all pretty obvious. So, based on what she’s said here, I’m wondering if the Pevensies & Pillars scene isn’t really in the movie at all, and Fox just used it as a marketing ploy? Unless, provided, it’s also just a fleeting image in the magician’s book.

Still have no idea where the images of Peter and Susan from the Theater Standee fit into all of this. I don’t know why they would take the time to get Anna dolled up in the 40’s style if a frame from the pillar scene would have sufficed. Only thing I can guess is that Lucy uses a spell to look in on Peter and Susan in the magician’s book scene. Seeing Susan in America and the attention she receives for being "the pretty one" could potentially lead into Lucy being tempted by the beauty spell, too. (Would also explain why it is Susan that Lucy wants to look like.)

But if all of the older Pevensies’ appearances were in the Book of Incantations (Susan in the beauty spell, Peter and Susan in the altered "what your friends really think of you" spell, and the four all walking among the pillars), it would seem like overkill. I’m not really sure how that would fit into the scene. But it’s also the only way that Anna’s statement of "I just went out basically to do this one scene" makes sense, if she’s still going to appear in different outfits and backdrops, because the one scene she is referencing is the magician’s book scene.

I think the entire point of the world of Narnia is to give the mind something extrodinary to think about. Movies are never like the books. So if you don’t like the new direction then just don’t see the movie, and stick with the book. Sorry to break it to you, but you might even like the movie better. Like goes on!

My Goodness! I don’t think we could analyze this any more thoroughly… what I want to know is where on earth Peter and Susan are in the "walking" scene. It seems like a completely unnatural setting… it looks more like an outdoor stage or something.

If we are going based off of what was in the trailer it looks like she and William will be in it noticeably, but if we go off of what she said it seems like she may just be an extra? It’s hard to tell! Guess we will just have to wait till December!!!! 🙂

Flashback is the most appropriate idea that came up, I guess :s I know there’s every chance I’m wrong,and it’s the lamest of all the opinions, but maybe they just show Susan and Peter with Lucy and Ed, since it’s mainly their story, right?
I don’t think it’s the magician’s book, since Su is supposed to appear in the "book" looking murderously (er, no) at Lucy if she uttered that beauty spell, but here she’s walking with Narnian clothes with Peter, and he’s not supposed to be in the spellbook.
Yeah, maybe Lucy has a flashback about their old times in Narnia, when they were fighting, but again, maybe not.

I have some other confusions, I think I’ll have to go through the story thoroughly once more to check if there’s any other appearance/memories related to Peter/Susan or the four Pevensies altogether. Or maybe they come as different people. But don’t bother about this, I’m just blabbering excitedly. 🙂 Can’t wait for the movie….

Oh I really wished that Susan and Peter would have at least more than one scene in the film! It must be really hard for them not getting to act in the film! That doesn’t mean it won’t be good though!!! CAN’T WAIT FOR THE FILM 🙂

Speaking of Anna, she closed Elliot J. Frieze S/S 2011 show in London Fashion Week yesterday. You will be surprise with her make-up and dress but i think it’s beautiful cos she done something different this time.

I ‘m really puzzled, everyone. The phrases "in a teeny tiny fraction" and "keep your eyes peeled" sound like they are referring to the scene in the magician’s book. It certainly doesn’t sound like referring to that scene in the trailer where the 4 pevensies are walking….you wouldn’t have to ‘keep your eyes peeled’ to spot her there….So I’ll wager that this scene isn’t in the movie, but they just used it to attract attention to the movie in general????? I don’t know what to think!
Really excited about the movie though :):)

I think that that scene in the trailer is from Prince Caspian, i reckon it was a tie in shot. I have a sneeky feeling that susan could be at the start of the movie along with peter.. they are going to have to acount for their absence not everyone has read the book!!

In Coriakin’s book, Lucy sees Susan in both countries, Narnia and England, as she casts her spell to make herself beautiful beyond the lot of mortals. In the pictures in Coriakin’s book, she upstages Susan, even though she has done so already! Unbeknownst to her, she already is more beautiful than Susan, and the only thing she desires is what she has already.

3 Trackbacks / Pingbacks for this entry

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by NarniaWeb.com, Amadea Shabira Devi. Amadea Shabira Devi said: RT @NarniaWeb: Anna Popplewell says she is only in a &quot;fraction&quot; of VDT. http://bit.ly/9sjmJJ […]

[…] Anna Popplewell: Susan’s Appearance Will Be Brief In a short video interview, Anna Popplewell says that she is only in a “teeny tiny fraction” of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Read more on Narnia Web […]